Paul Ryan: "I Worry About Getting People To Become Successful"

"Sowing class envy and social unrest is not what we do in America. I think the president is doing that. I think he's [Obama's] preying on the emotions of fear, envy and anger and that is not constructive to unifying America," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Paul Ryan says Obama is a "divider." Ryan also says Republicans don't want to put barriers to prevent social and economic upward mobility.

"I don’t worry about people who are already rich. I’m worried about getting people to become successful, removing those barriers so that people who have never seen success before can actually become successful. And when you keep raising all these tax rates, all these regulatory barriers on successful small businesses, how are we going to get the jobs of tomorrow? This redistribution idea, of pitting people against each other, does not work, it’s divisive, and it hardly gives us the kind of attitude we want for businesses to take risks so they can succeed in the future."

No. Obama remains personally very popular. And his and the Democratic Party's policies are also more popular than Ryan's.

With every passing day, that becomes increasingly less certain - and it's only some policies - some are far more popular than Obama/Democratic Party's. Even Herman Cain may be polling higher than Obama.

No. Obama remains personally very popular. And his and the Democratic Party's policies are also more popular than Ryan's.

With every passing day, that becomes increasingly less certain - and it's only some policies - some are far more popular than Obama/Democratic Party's. Even Herman Cain may be polling higher than Obama.

Sure. In your hypothetical future, what may or may not happen is obviously uncertain.

But please do try and find a domestic policy position position Paul Ryan or Herman Cain have that is more popular than Obama.

Christian73 saidSure. In your hypothetical future, what may or may not happen is obviously uncertain.

But please do try and find a domestic policy position position Paul Ryan or Herman Cain have that is more popular than Obama.

Starting point: reducing the size of government. Americans recognize almost universally that government doesn't provide value for the dollars it spends. Americans also don't want their taxes to rise - of course with the demagoguery, Democrats want Americans to believe that they can do everything by raising taxes of just the rich but unfortunately the math doesn't work.

Meanwhile, stimulus is an increasingly unpopular domestic policy - even toxic - because Americans don't believe it has worked - meanwhile costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

Christian73 saidSure. In your hypothetical future, what may or may not happen is obviously uncertain.

But please do try and find a domestic policy position position Paul Ryan or Herman Cain have that is more popular than Obama.

Starting point: reducing the size of government. Americans recognize almost universally that government doesn't provide value for the dollars it spends. Americans also don't want their taxes to rise - of course with the demagoguery, Democrats want Americans to believe that they can do everything by raising taxes of just the rich but unfortunately the math doesn't work.

Meanwhile, stimulus is an increasingly unpopular domestic policy - even toxic - because Americans don't believe it has worked - meanwhile costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

What has this to do with someone from Canada? Is this your concern? Do you have some competence or legitimacy to be addressing these US topics every day here?

Art_Deco saidWhat has this to do with someone from Canada? Is this your concern? Do you have some competence to be addressing these topics?

Canadians are wishing to avoid an influx of economic refugees from the rapidly failing USA. Paul Ryan is trying to push an unstable republic over a cliff. He just can't forsee how much worse his policies will make things for most Americans

Christian73 saidSure. In your hypothetical future, what may or may not happen is obviously uncertain.

But please do try and find a domestic policy position position Paul Ryan or Herman Cain have that is more popular than Obama.

Starting point: reducing the size of government. Americans recognize almost universally that government doesn't provide value for the dollars it spends. Americans also don't want their taxes to rise - of course with the demagoguery, Democrats want Americans to believe that they can do everything by raising taxes of just the rich but unfortunately the math doesn't work.

Meanwhile, stimulus is an increasingly unpopular domestic policy - even toxic - because Americans don't believe it has worked - meanwhile costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

What has this to do with someone from Canada? Is this your concern? Do you have some competence or legitimacy to be addressing these US topics every day here?

Christian73 saidSure. In your hypothetical future, what may or may not happen is obviously uncertain.

But please do try and find a domestic policy position position Paul Ryan or Herman Cain have that is more popular than Obama.

Starting point: reducing the size of government. Americans recognize almost universally that government doesn't provide value for the dollars it spends. Americans also don't want their taxes to rise - of course with the demagoguery, Democrats want Americans to believe that they can do everything by raising taxes of just the rich but unfortunately the math doesn't work.

Meanwhile, stimulus is an increasingly unpopular domestic policy - even toxic - because Americans don't believe it has worked - meanwhile costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

I agree that raising taxes on the rich, even if it were successful, is definitely not going to solve anything in the long run. And I agree that in some aspects, the money spent by the government is ill handled, and should become more efficient. Yet, I think that slashing programs isn't the correct way to go about it either, and that the problem goes far beyond just choosing which program to cut. The government needs to be more involved and invest in certain areas, and cut back and be less involved in other areas. I tend to fall with Democrats in more issues than Republicans, since the more religious right tend to push issues I disagree with. Although I have quite a few issues with the Democrats as well, and disagree with their policy ideas.

That said, Paul Ryan is a dick, and I don't see what upwards mobility has anything to do with Obama. Success of a person has less to do with tax rates and regulatory barriers, and more of the intellect/education, ability, and determination of the individual (I believe). I'm not understanding the connection he's making between the two statements. Did I miss specific policies that he is referencing to?

ETA: Art_Deco, riddler78's nationality technically doesn't have any relevance to his attention. Is it none of my business to inquire about Canadian economic policies and politics?

Christian73 saidSure. In your hypothetical future, what may or may not happen is obviously uncertain.

But please do try and find a domestic policy position position Paul Ryan or Herman Cain have that is more popular than Obama.

Starting point: reducing the size of government. Americans recognize almost universally that government doesn't provide value for the dollars it spends. Americans also don't want their taxes to rise - of course with the demagoguery, Democrats want Americans to believe that they can do everything by raising taxes of just the rich but unfortunately the math doesn't work.

Meanwhile, stimulus is an increasingly unpopular domestic policy - even toxic - because Americans don't believe it has worked - meanwhile costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

I agree that raising taxes on the rich, even if it were successful, is definitely not going to solve anything in the long run. And I agree that in some aspects, the money spent by the government is ill handled, and should become more efficient. Yet, I think that slashing programs isn't the correct way to go about it either, and that the problem goes far beyond just choosing which program to cut. The government needs to be more involved and invest in certain areas, and cut back and be less involved in other areas. I tend to fall with Democrats in more issues than Republicans, since the more religious right tend to push issues I disagree with. Although I have quite a few issues with the Democrats as well, and disagree with their policy ideas.

That said, Paul Ryan is a dick, and I don't see what upwards mobility has anything to do with Obama.Success of a person has less to do with tax rates and regulatory barriers, and more of the intellect/education, ability, and determination of the individual (I believe). I'm not understanding the connection he's making between the two statements. Did I miss specific policies that he is referencing to?

ETA: Art_Deco, riddler78's nationality technically doesn't have any relevance to his attention. Is it none of my business to inquire about Canadian economic policies and politics?

WOOOOOOAAAAAH!!!

the above in red: You earn $245K a year, and takes [fed/state/ and local] take apprx 64%, but if you are upwardsly moble and get raise to $250K, your new tax per Obama's original plan would exceed 68% + a 5% surcharge, accrdly to OMB- [led by democrats but supposedly non-partisan]

so...WHY WORK HARDER TO GET RAISE AND BRING HOME MUCH LESS MONEY.

And even the Senate democrats won't co-sponser and support his new 'stimulus plan' aka Jobs plan. Sen Mcconnell of KY [REP] has asked it to be voted on 3 times, and Sen Reid, Maj ldr of demo's has refused to bring to floor.

THOSE PESKY little facts get in ur way lolz... and like to see all sides but only with facts, not BS opinions and made up quotes.

the above in red: You earn $245K a year, and takes [fed/state/ and local] take apprx 64%, but if you are upwardsly moble and get raise to $250K, your new tax per Obama's original plan would exceed 68% + a 5% surcharge, accrdly to OMB- [led by democrats but supposedly non-partisan]

so...WHY WORK HARDER TO GET RAISE AND BRING HOME MUCH LESS MONEY.

And even the Senate democrats won't co-sponser and support his new 'stimulus plan' aka Jobs plan. Sen Mcconnell of KY [REP] has asked it to be voted on 3 times, and Sen Reid, Maj ldr of demo's has refused to bring to floor.

THOSE PESKY little facts get in ur way lolz... and like to see all sides but only with facts, not BS opinions and made up quotes.

dancedancekj said Did I miss specific policies that he is referencing to?

That's what I was getting at, thank you. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me at the same time.

Do the math (I'm not gonna bother looking up the exact tax rates, but since you're so interested, please have at it).

You do the math.

1) State income taxes are deductible from federal tax. So it's just trolling to "add" them to the federal tax and claim that's what anyone pays.

2) "Marginal" rates mean that only the dollars above a certain level are taxed more highly. The claim that someone making $250,001 loses money compared to someone making $250,000 is nonsense. In this example, the lower bracket applies to the $250,000....the higher only to the extra $1.

3) Those who are spreading this nonsense either are liars or economic illiterates. I'll be kind and assume the latter.

There isnt a soul in this country that makes 250 grand and doesnt have DEDUCTIONS& loopholes they claim to avoid paying taxes on the entire 250 grand ..... period. end of story.

Do the math (I'm not gonna bother looking up the exact tax rates, but since you're so interested, please have at it).

You do the math.

1) State income taxes are deductible from federal tax. So it's just trolling to "add" them to the federal tax and claim that's what anyone pays.

2) "Marginal" rates mean that only the dollars above a certain level are taxed more highly. The claim that someone making $250,001 loses money compared to someone making $250,000 is nonsense. In this example, the lower bracket applies to the $250,000....the higher only to the extra $1.

3) Those who are spreading this nonsense either are liars or economic illiterates. I'll be kind and assume the latter.

There isnt a soul in this country that makes 250 grand and doesnt have DEDUCTIONS& loopholes they claim to avoid paying taxes on the entire 250 grand ..... period. end of story.